Is state-of-the-art evidence admissible in a strict products liability action?

The majority's holding in this case, however, does not mean that state-of-the-art evidence is admissible in all strict products liability cases. Although the majority finds no need to reach the issue here (see maj. opn., ante, p. 530, fn. 2 of 281 Cal.Rptr., p. 551, fn. 2 of 810 P.2d), in my view it is both prudent and appropriate to make it clear that state-of-the-art evidence would not necessarily be relevant when, for example, a plaintiff in a strict products liability action relies solely on the so-[53 Cal.3d 1005] "consumer expectation" prong of the design defect standard. (See, e.g., Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 429-430, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443.)